NEW STATE HOUSE.
Mr. HEFFREN, from a majority of the New State House Investigating Committee, submitted a report thereon substantially as follows:
Your Committee finds from the evidence that the prices of material and labor entering into the construction of the new State House are now, and have been for some time, at least 20 per cent higher than when the contract was awarded.
We also find that the work has been done in accordance with the plans and specifications on file in the Commissioners' office, the material and design being unexcelled.
We also find from the evidence that there have been many changes in the plans and specifications found necessary by the Board in the progress of the work that all the changes have been made by the Board i'i strict conformity with the contract.
The evidence further discloses that one William page: 258[View Page 258] B. Howard now owns Kanmacher's interest in the contract, but that he is not recognized by the Board as a contractor. The evidence, while very meager upon that subject, would seem to Indicate that the contractors, Kanmacher & Denig, are not financially very responsible.
While the evidence of the contractors allowed that they have expended upon the building $996,308.98, making an apparent loss of $287,434.10, this apparent lose Includes the 10 per cent. retained by the Board, together with all interest upon the amounts advanced over and above the amounts received by contractors upon estimates for work done, as well as plant, machinery, etc., reducing the total loss of the contractors on the building proper to $100,000.
In view of all the foregoing facts we are of the opinion that the State House can be built within the amount allowed by law if completed under the present management of Howard & Denig-$2,000,000-but not at the contract; price, $1,762,207.58. We are of the opinion, from the evidence, that if the contract is relet to the other contractors the building can never be completed within $2,000,000. We believe, further, from the evidence, that a reletting to new contractors will retard the completion of the building at least one year. We also find that Mr. Kanmacher is a non-resident and Insolvent, and that Mr. Denig has little financial ability, and that without pecuniary aid he can not complete his contract. We also find that the sureties are non-residents of Indiana. We also find by a communication from the Board of State House Commissioners that the contractors are desirous to be released from their contract, and that the contract be let to Howard & Denig.
We report resolutions for adoption, and recommend that the House take some action in regard to the preservation of the evidence in the case. We also report a bill for the consideration of this House.
The report is signed by Messrs. Heffren, Moody, Shockney and Huston. The bill, prepared by the Board of State House Commissioners, which the Committee will submit to the Legislature, is supplemental to the existing statute, and provides for the reletting of the contract to Howard & Denig, who will be required to give bond in a sum not less than $250,000, with ample and acceptable security, and one of the bondsmen shall be a resident of Indiana. The reletting of the contract is upon the condition that the State House Building shall be tally completed within the time specified by law and at a cost not exceeding $2,000,000, which shall include the expenditures already made upon work. The bill authorizes the Board of State House Commissioners to make the new contract. The resolution referred to provides for the payment of the expenses of the investigation.
Mr. McCORMICK submitted a minority report Betting forth that the entire management indicates a disposition to favor the contractors, and aid them in securing from this Legislature an additional appropriation; that the work has not been done in accordance with the plans and specifications as originally adopted, as many changes have been made on account of the incompleteness of the original plans and specifications; and that all of said changes have been made at an increased cost to the State in some cases three prices were paid. The management of the work team not been economical, costing more than was necessary. From the facts deduced from the evidence the Committee were of the opinion it was the duty of the contractor to proceed with the building according to the contract for the amount specified in the original contract.
These reports were made the special order for 2 o'clock Wednesday.
Mr. Frazer's bill [H. R. 37] to create the Court of Appeals it provides that the Governor shall appoint, to serve until the next general election, five Judges of an Appellate Court, one from each Supreme Court District, two of them to be Republicans, two Democrats and one National, their salary to be $3,500 a year] was read the third time.
Mr. FRAZER, after reciting the necessities that caused the creation of ^be Supreme Court Commission, stated that there could be no doubt that the Commission must be continued or an Appellate Court created. The Commission has only reduced the number of cases before the Supreme Court 500 in the last two years. He was of the opinion that at least one half more business could be dispensed with by the Court, should it be created, than by the Supreme Court Commission. The bill strong y advocated itself to him as an economical measure and it would in the various ways prove a saving to the State of some $11,000 per year. It would also save one-sixth of the time of the Supreme Court Judges for under the Commission the Supreme Court Judges expend about one-sixth of their time in reviewing the decisions of the Commission, This bill meets the approval of the people, and meets the approval of two out of the five Supreme Court Commissioners. The passage of the bill was preferable to the continuation of the Supreme Court Commission now in existence, for the further reason that the Appellate Court would not be subject to the provision of the Constitution, which required a written opinion in every case, but would only wire opinions in cases where the decisions of lower Courts were reversed.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, thought the bill should not pass. It is too far from the people. It is as high in its provinces as the Supreme Court itself. This bill provides that in all cases where the amount does not exceed $3,000 it, should go to the Court of Appeals. An examination of the matters will reveal the fact that nine-tenths of the cases before the Supreme Court do not exceed that amount. Should this bill become a law this- would be the only State hi the Union that has two Courts of last resort. He hoped that the bill would not pass and that the Commission would continue for two years more.
Mr. JEWETT was of the opinion that that part of the Constitution which says that justice must be administered speedily and without delay is not faithfully carried out at present. It must be conceded that this bill must pass or the Supreme Court Commission must be passed. He knew that he voiced the opinion of the majority of the people when he asserts that the Supreme Court Commission has been a failure. It will require more money to run the Commission for the next two years than to create the Court of Appeals and keep it running for the next two years. He was in favor of giving this Court of Appeals a fair test for the next two years.
Mr. HAM was opposed to the bill. He feared that if this Court of Appeals was created, it would, be impossible for the people to get rid of it, even though it proved an unsatisfactory experiment.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, believed that the Supreme Court Commissions were becoming more unpopular every day. When the Commission was created it was expected that it would clean up the docket in two years, but after a trial of two year they were only about 500 cages from where they were when the Commission was established. We have now reached a point where we must continue that Commission or create another Court. This Court is indispensible; the people want it: he was in favor of it.
Mr. HEFFREN: I have no right to speak for any constituency but my own. I believe that I know their wants, desires and requirements. I know that they are opposed to any increase of page: 259[View Page 259] Courts in this State. I know that at every session of the Legislature new propositions for new Courts are proposed, and the cry is that the public business requires it. Whenever a new office is proposed there is always a horde of persons ready and clamoring for places where they may be fed at the expense of the State. I am opposed to this bill because it will not do what its supporters contend it will. Let this bill pass and we never will get rid of it. The people do not want it. They are already burdened with taxation and demand relief. This will make no saving. If the Commission is continued for two years it will expire of its own accord. This bill is one to open the doors of the Treasury to feed hungry officers at the expense of the people. I hope it will not pass.
Mr. GORDON was of the opinion that this bill, should it pass, could not afford immediate relief. It could not try the 1,000 cases now before the Supreme Court; it would only try new cases. In two years more the Commission, at the same rate, will have brought up the Supreme Court docket as nearly as it is possible to be done. He concurred in the remark previously made that this Court, should it be created, would assume nine- tenths of the business of the Supreme Court.
Mr. GIBSON stated that it was a mistake that this Court would get nine-tenths of the work of the Supreme Court. This question was carefully considered by the Committee, which divided this work so as to give about one-half to the Court of Appeals and one-half to the Supreme Court. He was informed that the Supreme Court was against the Commission and was in favor of the Court of Appeals. He thought the bill had better pass creating this Court.
Mr. PATTEN thought the bill was very fair and very reasonable, and that it would give great relief to the people of the State. He felt that the Supreme Court must have some relief. This relief must come by the Commission or by the creation of this Court. From a financial standpoint he was in favor of the creation of this Court. It would be a saving of $500 per year on each Judge. Should this Commission he continued it would require six years to clear the docket of the Supreme Court.
Mr. FRAZER was of the opinion that the opposition came from the Districts where the present Commissioners desired a continuance of this Supreme Court Commission that they might not lose their positions. He was forced to the conclusion that some members were working in the interest of members of this Commission and not in the interest of the people If any gentleman would prove to him. that the bill did not save some $11,000 to the people each year he would vote against the bill.'
The bill was rejected by yeas, 37; nays. 50, as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Adams, Antrim, Barr, Best, Brazelton, Campbell, Copeland, Ferriter, Frazee, Frazer, Furnas, Genung, Gibson, Holler, Howland, Huston, Jewett, Kirkpatrick, Knowles, McClelland of Lawrence, McMullen, Mellett, Mosier, Patten, Pettibone, Robinson, Shockney, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Tippecanoe, Spain, Sterret, Stranghan, Wiley, Wilson of Kosciuko, Wilson of Marion and Mr. Speaker-37.
Nays-Messrs Akin, Beeson, Brooks, Cabbage, Carr, Chandler, Davis, Deem, Fisher, Fleece, Gantz, Berber, Gilman, Gordon, Ham, Heffren, Henderson, Kennedy, Kester, McCormick, McHenry, Marsh, Mauck of Harrison, Mering, Miller, Mock of Wells, Montgomery, Moody. Mutz, Nave, Peters, Pruitt, Pulse, Robertson, Schloss. Shaffer. Shaw, Smith of Blackford. Smith of Perry, Stevenson, Stewart, Stucker, Sutton, Thompson, Tuley, Weaver, Westfall, Whitsit, Williams of Knox and Woodling-50.
So the bill was rejected.
